Yet you mocked me when I said that I needed to hang out with people who weren't part of the clique.

M'kay?

So I guess you should move to NH and hang out with Picaro.I just find it amusing that you think you will find more comrads elsewhere. They are moving here.

Maybe, but between Wes and I there's the beginnings of a small exodus to southern california.

I was just referring to the fact that you said that you agreed with picaro when he said that we need to form relationships with people outside of our beliefs. Because you've mocked me every time I said that. You'd cackle when I talked about authentic communities and such. I know it was good natured, but I guess always took it as a little friendly jab, meaning that you didn't think I was right. But now you say you agree, so I guess I was surprised is all.

Maybe you can be the apostle to the libertarians and gun cleaners, and I'll be the apostle to the socialists and homeless people. As apostle to the socialists, I glorify my ministry!

Maybe, but between Wes and I there's the beginnings of a small exodus to southern california.

I was just referring to the fact that you said that you agreed with picaro when he said that we need to form relationships with people outside of our beliefs. Because you've mocked me every time I said that. You'd cackle when I talked about authentic communities and such. I know it was good natured, but I guess always took it as a little friendly jab, meaning that you didn't think I was right. But now you say you agree, so I guess I was surprised is all.

Maybe you can be the apostle to the libertarians and gun cleaners, and I'll be the apostle to the socialists and homeless people. As apostle to the socialists, I glorify my ministry!

I agree with you Caleb.

I heard from a reliable source that San Diego is Objectivist heaven, so maybe you should join them.

I question your apostleship credencials.

How did you like "What is to be Done", by Tolstoy?

Logged

srqrebel

Is this really completely irrational? If you date with the ultimate goal of forming a life-long pair-bond... there are clear disadvantages to forming such a bond with a person with a significantly shorter lifespan.

Perhaps, though I would much rather enjoy decades of a mutually satisfying relationship, even if I outlive my "soul-mate" by many years, than to reject such a relationship in the hopes of finding the same, only within some arbitrary age limit.

Think about it: Age is just a number. I have actually seen a 50-year old woman that I could have easily fallen for (she literally seemed like a twenty-something, and was actually pretty hot, both in physical features and personality). Eventually though, I would like to have children, and I don't want to be stuck in a relationship with someone who is past the point of childbearing. That is not at all an age objection, though, if you think about it. It is just that we tend to mentally associate certain things with age that simply do not apply universally.

You bet social norms are very powerful, and play a very important part in keeping the coming Free Market Civilization functioning smoothly once established.

Then let's change the normative behavior. We may scoff at suburban pointlessness and its oppressive mediocrity. However, relating to others on a mundane level helps them recognize your humanity. It is important for others to see themselves reflected in you when you demonstrate. A good working example is Harry Hay who founded the Mattachine Society and the Radical Fairies. Despite their radical politics, they would disguise themselves as normal people and descend en masse on small towns.

For those who have rejected violence, militance cannot win the day by itself. The militant core is important for making issues topical. People at demonstrations may be quickly dismissed as freaks. Casual political conversation with a peer is not so easily dismissed. Strong ties to neighbors, church groups, and charities help show yourself as stable/invested/sane.

The challenge is to find peers outside libertarian circles. Then, not become subsumed by the mainstream.

I agree wholeheartedly, and thank you for pointing this out. This is another one of those aspects that enhance this strategy. This one, though, is so important that it cannot be stressed enough.

Since the faulty AMOG-oriented paradigm is such a tenacious one, it is exceedingly difficult to get the accurate, Free Market/Voluntaryist paradigm across to our audience, even those who are fairly aware that something is dreadfully wrong with the world we live in. Since we are so prone to being misunderstood, and it is easier for the average sheeple to rationalize us away as nutcases, rather than seriously consider the possibility that their own basic worldview could be fundamentally flawed, it is vitally important we carefully monitor our conduct at all times to maintain the closest, value-oriented ties possible with those around us. A very real part of my strategy is how I conduct myself toward my coworkers, who are my most accessible audience: I not only make sure that I always conduct myself with the utmost integrity and honor toward them, I make a conscious effort to treat them respectfully, help them out whenever I can, smile and brighten their day wherever possible, listen to them and generally show that I care about them (for I do -- after all, they are my fellow human beings).

The result of this consistent effort to bond with those who have no clue about the paradigm shift I have made, is that when my efforts culminate in a high-profile arrest for some victimless "crime", many of those coworkers will be faced with an unshakable dilemma: Pass me off as a nutcase, or give some real serious thought to my newly-revealed message. If they happen to hear a coworker thoughtlessly deriding me for getting arrested, they will feel compelled to defend the honor of someone who has demonstrated genuine friendship toward themselves. This will further compel them to try to make sense of this strange message that is being presented by someone they know to be an intelligent, honorable, and well-liked individual. Their past interactions with me will not permit those individuals to pass me off as a nutcase.

The fact that my efforts have led to me being a very well-liked employee, also increases the odds that management will be open to giving me "second chance", in the event that I am unexpectedly arrested and miss work without advance notice.

I have not read, "You Can't Blow Up a Social Relationship", but I will add it to my long and growing reading list. I must say, though -- I heartily agree with its title.

Just an observation: What is described on that website is very much an offer of contract, regardless of what else you wish to call it. A contract is simply a voluntary agreement between individuals. This constitutes an offer to provide services at a price to be entirely determined by the customer after the services have been rendered. If someone accepts this offer, that constitutes a contract.

I would personally never place my property at the mercy of another by offering my resources (time, energy, materials, tools, etc.) without ensuring that I have tied my own just compensation to the reputation of my customer. The prospect of losing repeat sales and referrals, and damage to my own reputation, is enough for me to ensure that the customer leaves happy. I need my compensation to be spelled out and agreed to in advance, to ensure that it is likewise tied to their reputation.

Just curious -- would you likewise give me a specific dollar amount up front, say $50, to come do services for you, but leave it up to me to decide how much work I will do for you after you have paid me the $50?

Think about it: Age is just a number. I have actually seen a 50-year old woman that I could have easily fallen for (she literally seemed like a twenty-something, and was actually pretty hot, both in physical features and personality). Eventually though, I would like to have children, and I don't want to be stuck in a relationship with someone who is past the point of childbearing.

There seem to be some unspoken assumptions here that perhaps you ought to examine.

I heard from a reliable source that San Diego is Objectivist heaven, so maybe you should join them.

I question your apostleship credencials.

How did you like "What is to be Done", by Tolstoy?

Ouch! Well, I'm no Super-Apostle, like thyself. Maybe that's why I'm stuck out here in this horrible 70 degree weather talking to homeless people, and you get all the fun of hanging out with the gun cleaners there in your winter wonderland.

I hadn't read that one, actually. I was really enjoying "Letter to a Hindoo" which is now my favorite thing to recommend people from Tolstoy because it can be read in one setting, so they don't get a chance to say "well, it's very long and I have a lot of other things to read." I did read What is to be Done just now, and it was interesting, because he was dealing with the same things we deal with now: the people who wanted to either fight a violent revolution or else work incrementally within the system to change things, and he pretty much put both ideas to rest really easily, and then went back to his core idea of just living your life according to your own morals and not backing down.

I like this particular comment, toward the end, because I think it sums up my beliefs that I have been thinking even before I even heard of Tolstoy (at least, heard of him as a Christian anarchist):

Quote

Therefore the gist of what I wished to say to you is this: That it is unprofitable for good, sincere people to spend their powers of mind and soul on gaining small practical ends--for instance, in the various struggles of nationalities, or parties or in Liberal wire-pulling--while they have not reached a clear and firm religious perception; that is, a consciousness of the meaning and purpose of life. I think that all the era of soul and mind of good men, who wish to be of service to humanity, should be directed to that end. When that is accomplished all else will also be accomplished.

Think about it: Age is just a number. I have actually seen a 50-year old woman that I could have easily fallen for (she literally seemed like a twenty-something, and was actually pretty hot, both in physical features and personality). Eventually though, I would like to have children, and I don't want to be stuck in a relationship with someone who is past the point of childbearing.

There seem to be some unspoken assumptions here that perhaps you ought to examine.

Such as?

I am aware that with modern technology, it is possible for women much older than fifty to bear children, but it is not yet widely available. I am quite certain that I would like to raise a family, just not yet. I have no interest whatsoever in adopting.

The woman I referred to may have had other quite undesirable qualities that would have emerged had I gotten to know her better. The same is true of anyone my own age, so it is not necessarily a factor of age.

She could have been lying about her age, but she has (what she claims as her own) grown children, and it would seem really strange for a woman to claim to be older than she really is.

At any rate, the bottom line is there are certain qualities that must be present, and others that must be absent, for me to desire a relationship with a specific individual. If the right qualities are present, and the undesirable ones absent, it would make no difference to me if that person has literally been alive for 200 years.

Thus age is literally just a number -- and to dismiss someone as a potential mate based on an arbitrary number, rather than actual qualities, is not only irrational but amounts to stereotyping, which places an individual at an unfair disadvantage.

"What is to be done" ... is about his attempts at helping the poor through charity .... very good

I've read it three times, and still am not taking that from his pamphlet. His pamphlet was good, but it was mostly about how political methods actually support the state and how compliance with even simple state mandates breaks down the moral capacity of the one who complies...

Now this idea of helping the poor through charity seems like a tolstoy idea, so maybe i'm reading an abridged version or something.

I've been thinking about this idea of charity a lot, both last night and all day today. I wrote something up about it last night, but after I read it, I thought, "this isn't even what I myself believe" so I tossed it. I feel like my ideas on charity still aren't coming together very well, but the core of it is that charity for charity's sake is a different animal altogether than a different form of charity which seeks to alleviate suffering, find workable alternatives, etc. And that this divide is not healthy, because the two should be integrated somehow.

I guess what I mean to say is this: when I hand a burrito to a homeless man and chat with him for a few minutes, I feel good about myself internally. I feel happy. I feel love and charity. It is very uplifting to me. But I'm not sure that I am accomplishing a whole lot.

On the other hand, working towards legitimate solutions is often times not personally rewarding to the person giving it. And that seems harder anyway because who knows how to strike the root on a problem as big as "poverty"?

Is there a way to bridge these two? To insert an element of the personal in even broad actions?

I've been thinking about this idea of charity a lot, both last night and all day today. I wrote something up about it last night, but after I read it, I thought, "this isn't even what I myself believe" so I tossed it. I feel like my ideas on charity still aren't coming together very well, but the core of it is that charity for charity's sake is a different animal altogether than a different form of charity which seeks to alleviate suffering, find workable alternatives, etc. And that this divide is not healthy, because the two should be integrated somehow.

I guess what I mean to say is this: when I hand a burrito to a homeless man and chat with him for a few minutes, I feel good about myself internally. I feel happy. I feel love and charity. It is very uplifting to me. But I'm not sure that I am accomplishing a whole lot.

On the other hand, working towards legitimate solutions is often times not personally rewarding to the person giving it. And that seems harder anyway because who knows how to strike the root on a problem as big as "poverty"?

Ayn Rand (as imperfect as she was) addressed this perfectly in what she called the "myth of altruism". "Altruists" give because it makes them feel good, which negates their charity as being altruistic ("selfless giving") at all. Their motives are selfish: giving makes them feel good about themselves. Pretending otherwise is hypocritical.

I give to charities out of purely selfish motives: If I should ever need them, I want them to be there for me. It is in my rational self-interest to fund a safety net that might someday catch me. I needn't pretend that I'm doing it "for the people" in order to feel good about it.

There's nothing wrong with feeling good about handing a homeless man a burrito. It's a natural human response to feel gratified about doing good for someone else. Go with that. You can be totally selfish in your inner motivation, yet still do good for someone else.